To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

June 23, 2005(1)

June 23, 2005(1)

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 23, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSONES PRESENT: S. Lee; Dwight S. Alexander; Michael J. Antonini;

Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; William L. Lee; Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:34 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Purvis, Michael Li, Ben Fu, Irene Nishimura, Mathew Snyder. Isolde Wilson, Michael Smith, Geoffrey Nelson, Marshall Foster, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2005.0185D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1865 CLAY STREET - south side between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0623 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.17.9505S, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from eight dwelling units to six dwelling units in an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

2a. 2004.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in an the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ( NCD ) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for use size in excess of 3,000 square feet for a music training facility ( Music City"), with a Full-Service Restaurant and Bar with live entertainment, also requiring a Variance for off-street parking and usable open space for an upper-floor group-housing use.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the Project Sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remained open.

NOTE: On September 23, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to October 28, 2004.

NOTE: On October 28, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to November 18, 2004.

NOTE: On November 18, 2004, the Commission entertained a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote +6–0. Commissioner William Lee was absent. Final Language: December 9, 2004.

NOTE: On December 9, 2004, Commission tabled the item at the call of the Chair. Item to be re-noticed for a new hearing at a (non-specific) later date.

(proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

2b. 2002.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ( NCD ) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Off-Street Parking and Usable Open Space Variances sought in conjunction with the conversion of existing tourist hotel rooms to group housing (residential hotel rooms) and for a Full-service Restaurant and Bar and music training facility ( Music City ) with no off-street parking and no outdoor open area.

NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued the matter to September 23, 2004.

Public comment remained open.

NOTE: On September 23, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to October 28, 2004.

NOTE: On October 28, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to November 18, 2004.

NOTE: On November 18, 2004, the Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing with an intent to disapprove the Variance.

NOTE: On December 9, 2004, the Zoning Administrator tabled the matter indefinitely. Item to be re-noticed for a new hearing at a (non-specific) later date.

(proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

3. 2004.1106CV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

1360-1364 STEVENSON STREET - west side between McCoppin and Duboce Streets; Lot 073 in Assessor's Block 3513 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 215(a) to construct a four-story, five-unit residential building on a vacant lot within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District. A Rear Yard Variance is sought under Section 134(a) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and a rear setback. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Variance immediately following the Planning Commission's hearing, on the Conditional Use. The site is within the C-M District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2005)

(proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

4. (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

Cingular / AT&T- Informational Presentation - to explain how the merger of the two companies will affect all of their current and future conditional use applications.

(proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

5. 2005.0256T (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)

Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District Residential Conversion to Other Institution - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 724.1 to allow for conversion of upper floor residential units in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District as a conditional use, where: the new use will be an Other Institution, Educational Service use, only one dwelling unit in building will be converted, and that unit is the only non-residential use in the building, and no legally residing tenant with be displaced: and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 8, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

6. 2005.0264DD (i. wilson: (415) 558-6163)

680 27TH AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1569 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.08.8328, proposing to construct a 25-foot wide by 20-foot deep, three-story addition and a 17-foot wide by 12-foot deep deck (approximately five feet high) at the rear of the existing house, located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to September 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. Consideration of Adoption – Draft Minutes of May 26 and June 2, 2005.

  • Draft Minutes of May 26, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of June 2, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

EXCUSED: Hughes

8. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Bradford-Bell:

Re: Requested a calendar item to discuss, among themselves, the status of the Director search.

Commissioner S. Lee responded:

Re: Directed that a meeting be scheduled on July 21, 2005

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

  1. Introduced Alicia John-Baptiste – Administrative Officer, to give a summary of their presentation to the Finance Committee regarding the Department's budget.
  2. Zoning Administrator announced that Supervisor Alioto-Pier requested a 30-day extension on the Sec. 260 amendments.
  3. Geoffrey Nelson is leaving the Planning Department to pursue other interest.
  4. We are meeting with the Director of DBI to correlate our computer systems.

10. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOA:

None

BOS:

  1. Unanimously adopted the General Plan Amendment for Transbay.
  2. Adopted the original proposal for RM-1
  3. Block 185 – Jackson Square -- the Board adopted the original proposal.
  4. Supervisor Peskin requested an extension of the North Beach changes for 60 days.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKER:

Ernestine Weiss

  1. Expressed her disappointment with Commissioner Alexander's comments made to Supervisor Peskin regarding the Broadway Hotel.

- Requested a written apology to Supervisor Peskin

Charles Marstello

- Spoke regarding Sec. 1304 of the San Francisco Subdivision Ordinance.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Legislation that has been issued by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission needs to have notification.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.

ITEM 11 WAS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AND FOLLOWED ITEMS 12 & 13.

11. 2003.0205C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

638, 660, 662 CAMPBELL AVENUE - north side between Albert and Ervine Street; Lots 061,062,063 in Assessor's Block 6189 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 303(e) to modify conditions of approval under Motion No. 14856 (adopted by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2000 under Case No. 2000.557) in order to revise the design of three single-family dwellings that are under construction. The revisions would allow the enclosure of roof deck space at the rear of the third story to accommodate an additional bedroom in each dwelling. The site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Land Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Luna Harrison

  1. Her objection to this project is that she feels that she will be boxed-in.
  2. There is a back unit that has lots of sun. But the additional bedrooms being proposed will take away whatever light we are getting now.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

MOTION: 17047

12. 2005.0414C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

2001 Polk Street- northwest corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0574 - Request for conditional use authorization to add a Type 21 ABC license to the existing retail grocery store (dba  Cheese Plus ). Pursuant to Section 790.55 of the Planning Code, this proposal constitutes the establishment of a liquor store. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District..

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17045

13. 2004.0599C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

1022 GILMAN AVENUE - east side, between Griffith and Hawes Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 4937 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121(f) and 303 to construct a single-family dwelling on a substandard lot with respect to lot width as the result of a lot split in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17046

  • REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 2003.0465E (a.k.a. Case No. 2003.1210) (I. NISHIMURA: (415) 558-5967)

5600 THIRD STREETResidential and Commercial Mixed-Use Project- revision of Mitigation Measure of Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project would include demolition of approximately 110,700 square feet of vacant manufacturing and warehouse buildings and construction of a mixed use retail/commercial/social services development of approximately 277,340 square feet at 5600 Third Street (Assessor's Block 5421, Lots 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11), an approximately 136,750-square-foot (about 3.14 acres ) site, bounded by Bancroft Avenue and Armstrong Avenue, within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, Third Street Special Use District (SUD), and a 65-J Height and Bulk District, in the Bayview neighborhood. The eight-building project would include 260 units: 131 senior affordable housing units, 129 affordable for-sale townhouse units and flats, 165 off-street parking spaces in three ground level garages, and 8,840 gross square feet (gsf) of ground floor retail/commercial/social service space along Third Street and Bancroft Avenue. The proposed buildings would range in height from three to five stories (up to 52 feet tall). CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1 states that a public hearing be held and findings made when a mitigation measure is revised/substituted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project, and a determination be made that the revised/new mitigation measure, in itself, would not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. This finding will be made during Commission consideration of the adoption of the proposed Planning Commission Motion of Approval of the proposed revised hazardous materials mitigation measure. The project would require Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission for a Planned Unit Development and for residential uses in an M-1 District, which is a public hearing process. The Planned Unit Development would include modifications for residential density, rear yard configuration, no retail/commercial/social service parking and nooff-street loading.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve finding of no significant impact with revision of Mitigation Measure 2: Hazardous Materials of Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

SPEAKERS:

Steve Atkinson

  1. Negative Declaration is incomplete and inadequate in a couple of respects.
  2. 1) On the lack of discussion on the impact of the parking shortfall on near by businesses; 2) the lack of consideration of how a new residential project in an industrial area can affect the continuation of existing industrial operations.

Unclear name

- Not opposed to the project, but is concerned about the parking.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

MOTION: 17048

15. 2003.1210ECK (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

5600 THIRD STREET - the block bounded by Third Street, Bancroft Avenue, Mendell Street, and Armstrong Avenue, Lot 3 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 in Assessor's Block 5421 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow residential dwelling units in an M-1 (Light Industrial) District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215, and to allow a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Section 304, which would include exceptions to configuration of the rear yard (Planning Code Section 134), dwelling unit density (Planning Code Section 215), bay window obstructions (Planning Code Section 136(c)(3) and for parking (Planning Code Section 151). The Proposal includes demolishing the existing industrial structures on the lots and constructing a mixed-use development that would consist of three phases, and would include about 131 senior housing units, 129 other units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space, and 161 off-street parking spaces. The project's buildings would generally be five-stories tall. The subject property is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, a Third Street Special Use District (lot 11 only), and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Pamela Simms – Redevelopment Agency

  1. Asked the Commission to amend Condition 9 regarding the affordability because the language currently states that 88% of the units are subordinate. In fact, in order to obtained the private financing we would need to make these units affordable we will need 100% of the units to be subordinate.

Lydia Tam – Bridge Housing Corporation

  1. Hopes the Commission will vote favorably on this project.

Kevin Wilcolk, Architect for the project

  1. Gave an overall description of the project.

Kate White

  1. This is a fabulous project.
  2. It will be a beautiful and elegant design.

Marsha Pendergrass

  1. She supports this project 100%, but is concerned that this is for sale housing; concerned with the number of parking spaces and the number of two bedroom units. If we are trying to keep a family community, the units are too small. We need three, four or larger [bedroom] units in our community.

Steve Atkinson

  1. Concerned about several negative effects. First of all I am concerned that this is creating a very large parking shortfall because the project does not provide sufficient parking to meet its demands.

Steve Vettel

  1. 34% of the for sale units are 3 bedrooms and 23% are 4 bedrooms.
  2. There is no real parking shortfall associated with this project.

Ernestine Weiss

  1. Approve this project because we need affordable housing, especially in this District.

ACTION: Approved as amended: The project sponsor is required to (1) disclosure to potential tenants of the current industrial nature of the area; (2) minor change in affordability subordination language of condition no. 9; and (3) that they receive appropriate approval by the Planning Commission under PC Sec. 295 to allow new shadow in Bayview Playground.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

MOTION: 17049

16. 2003.0869E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

88 Fifth Street - The Old U.S. Mint - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the rehabilitation plus seismic upgrade and addition to the United States Old Mint located at 88 Fifth Street in downtown San Francisco (Assessor's Block 3704, Lot 11). The existing three-story plus an occupied attic 99,921-gross-square-foot (gsf) building would be retained, and the first floor courtyard enclosed in 1973 for offices would be removed, (a deduction of 4,336 gsf), and additional circulation bridges, stairs and an elevator (addition of 2,642 gsf) would be added within the existing 4-story courtyard. The existing attic would be expanded on the roof along the south side of the courtyard to create a museum gallery (an addition of 1,554 gsf) with a view of the city skyline to the south. The courtyard removal and additions of bridges and roof gallery would result in an overall reduction of gsf, for a total floor area of 99,788 gsf. The building would include 79,957 square feet if usable space total including: 36,326 sf of City History Museum space, 2,082 sf of Museum office space, 2,045 sf of museum back of house space, 2,044 sf of museum retail, and 3,336 sf of museum theater space. Tenants in the building would be the 8,153 sf Gold Rush and Money Museum, 2,492 sf of small retail lease spaces, and 6,360 gsf of restaurant space and cafe. 3,987 sf would be used for the San Francisco Visitor Center, and the remaining 11,108 sf would be circulation, toilets and support spaces ancillary to the museum use. The project would include closure of Jessie Street to vehicles, between Mint and Fifth Streets, to be used for outdoor restaurant seating. The project site is approximately 47,515 sq. ft., is zoned P (Public) within a 90-X height and bulk district, and within the Mid-Market St. Revitalization and Conservation District. Transaction document approvals would be required from the Board of Supervisors, and a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)

APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITHDRAWN

17. 2005.0459T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Planning Code Section 260 Amendments - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending section 260 to increase the height exemption for elevator penthouses from 10 to 16 feet, to allow the Zoning Administrator to grant further exemptions for buildings with height limits of more than 65 feet where such an exemption is required to meet state or federal laws or regulations; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)

NOTE: On June 16, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to June 23, 2005 by vote +6 –0. Commissioner William Lee was absent. Public hearing remains open for any new information.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 28, 2005.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

18. 2005.0264d (i. wilson: (415) 558-6163)

2615-2623 pACIFIC AVENUE - South side between Pierce and Scott Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0585 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.22.7590, proposing to merge the five existing dwelling units in the building into one dwelling unit, located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project

SPEAKERS:

David Silvermann – Project Sponsor

- This building has been empty for the last 20 months.

  1. This application would bring the building closer into conformance with the prevailing dwelling unit density in the area.
  2. Almost of all of the homes on this block are single-family homes.
  3. This is a historical building, listed in the 1976 architectural survey.

Gregg Scott

  1. It is very disingenuous of the owner to request a unit merger at this late day when all the prior proposals and drawings for this project show that they understood that they have to maintain the number of units.

Alex Pickas

  1. She is not in favor of one unit at 1,600 or 1,800 square feet.
  2. We need families living in Pacific Heights.
  3. We need to maintain the number of units that we started out with.

Margo Park

  1. Opposes the project.

Judith Duffy

  1. Asked the Commission to uphold the City's policies, staff recommendations, neighborhood associations, and individual resident's wishes.

Paul Warmer

  1. Asked the Commission to support the staff recommendations.

Courtney Clarkson

  1. Supports staff recommendations.

Jane Sutton

  1. Urged the Commission to follow their policies and not to reduce the number of units.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

19. 2004.0798D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2070 30TH AVENUE - east side between Pacheco and Quintara Streets, Lot 003M in Assessor's Block 2149 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.26.4825, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2005)

NOTE: On March 3, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to April 21, 2005 to allow the Project Sponsor to hire an architect to present alternative designs and to continue to work with the neighborhood trying to reach an agreement on a design. Public Hearing remains open.

NOTE: On April 21, 2005, the Commission continued it to May 19, 2005. On May 19, 2005, without hearing, the Commission continued the item to June 23, 2005.

SPEAKERS:

Nancy Dennis

  1. Asked the Commission to reject the proposed addition and recommend that the applicants build one story on top of their existing structure.
  2. There is no getting around the fact that this story would rise 8 feet above our roof and drastically impact the lower level of our backyard.

Nick Phelps

  1. My concerns about the addition are centered on the effect it would have on our lower patio area.

Unclear name

  1. Spoke against this addition because of the impact it will have on her back yard.
  2. She would lose her quality of life in her house.

Arlene Enos

  1. Opposed to the project.

Anne Clark

  1. Opposes the project.

Elizabeth Tracy

  1. Concerned about the change of character in the neighborhood, reduction of open space, and an increase in population density that would cause impacts such as parking space.

Dorothy Janson

  1. Opposed to the horizontal extension. If this extension is built her view would be become that of a 3-story blank wall.

Glenn Lou

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the project.

Patricia Booth

  1. We have outgrown our space and we need to provide our sons their own bedrooms

Jeffrey Lou

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the project.

Connie Lou

  1. Respectfully asked the Commission to approve the project.

Sandy Pham

  1. In support of the project.

Carlos Dominguez

  1. Supports the project.

C.J. Higley

  1. This addition is very moderate and the negative impacts expressed by neighbors have been exaggerated.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications offered today by the project sponsor.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

20a. 2003.0295CDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to convert a service station use to residential use and to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site was formerly a service station and is now vacant. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 28, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

20b. 2003.0295CDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.25.3201, proposing to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and requires Conditional Use authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 28, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

20c. 2003.0295CDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Variance from the rear yard requirements of Planning Code Section 134. The proposal is to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A Variance is required to construct an approximately 40' X 22' portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior corner of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet. This project also requires Conditional Use authorization, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 28, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

6:3O P.M.

21a. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider proposed amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan, Adopting Amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan, and Making CEQA findings and findings of General Plan Conformity related to the Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan as amended.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan and make CEQA findings and findings of Conformity of the Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan, as amended, with the General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Richard Marquez, Coalition to Save Mid-Market

  1. Mid-Market is a neighborhood. It is a place where people live and labor.
  2. Small business owners are concerned that they are going to be forced to move away from the neighborhood.
  3. This area is home for a lot of senior citizens.
  4. Almost everyone in Mid-Market can barely afford $500.00 [a month] in rent. And everyone pays less than $1,000 in rent.
  5. The community plan calls for a much deeper level of affordability so people who live there can stay there.
  6. We are concerned about pedestrian safety and public traffic in this area.

Sam Deustch, Coalition to Save Mid-Market

  1. It is interesting to see the reinvention of redevelopment.
  2. Quoted Justin Herman quoted --  the land in San Francisco is too valuable for the poor to park on it. He was talking about South of Market.
  3. Subsequently, what followed was 30 years of demolitions and evictions that eliminated thousands and thousands of units of affordable housing.
  4. How did we end up in this situation of un-affordability?

Tamara Cooper, San Francisco Beautiful

  1. San Francisco Beautiful supports the provisions within the SUD document that stated that billboards would not be permitted within the Mid-Market area.

Bruce Allison, Living Way Coalition

  1. When Moscone Center was built they actually displaced 2000 people. That started the homeless problem in the City.
  2. Do you want to start another homeless problem in the City?

Steven Aiello, Green Belt Alliance

  1. Green Belt Alliance definitely supports the Mid-Market Plan.
  2. However, we are concerned about displacement.
  3. It is a very human thing to consider what effects something like this would have on the existing residents.
  4. It is also very important to look at the future potential of plans like this, to bring new residents in, and to continue the vital growth that any city needs.

Valerie O'Donnell, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

  1. Asked the Commission to support the Redevelopment Agency plan.

Tracy (unclear last name)

  1. This is a very positive plan for the City.
  2. Urged the Commission to go forward and approve this plan.

Jim Ruben

  1. The Trinity Plaza project is physically within the boundaries of what is intended to be the SUD.
  2. Wanted to make the record clear so that everybody understands this is a very special case. The newspaper reported accurately that we are in process of negotiating a development agreement.

Kathy Looper

  1. There have been a lot of landmarked buildings demolished in the City.
  2. After those beautiful building were torn-down, for years we've had nothing to replace them.
  3. Here we are again. We are going to do the same thing and I wonder why?
  4. It has taken 40 years for communities to recover from redevelopment. All you have to do is look at South of Market, at Fillmore Street and some parts of Van Ness Avenue.
  5. Do we need to do this again to Market Street?
  6. Market Street is on the threshold of revitalizing itself.

Unclear name

  1. Urged the Commission to approve the plan.

Jose Moreno, Housing Action Coalition

  1. The coalition overwhelmingly supports the plan

Jerry Longoria

  1. Asked the Commission not to pass this plan.

Prince Bush

  1. Does not support the plan.

Michael Dugay

  1. Does not support the plan.

Bobbie Duke

  1. We are not necessarily opposed to redevelopment as long as we, those in the target area, have a voice in it. As long as our situations improve.

Susana Bell

  1. If the Mid-Market Plan goes through, will be forced out of her house, and would also have to pay for her medical coverage

Marie Gomez

  1. If this plan goes through I would have to move out.
  2. She needs her affordable housing.
  3. Do not throw us out from what we call home.

Darrell Cornelius

  1. Redevelopment has never been in the best interest of improving the community.
  2. These people are displaced. And now you want to take the little they have left and turn them into homeless.

Sammy Shepperd

  1. Does not support this plan.

Unclear name

  1. Does not support the proposed plan.

Lolita Quintanara

  1. We need to keep the nature of South of Market as it is.
  2. Do not displace organizations or people.
  3. Any development must incorporate these features.

Bruce Livingston, Senior Action Network

  1. Would like to see a living space for people to stay in the neighborhood that always lived in the neighborhood--people who are low income.

Randy Right

  1. Would like to see a Mid-Market that refreshes itself. One that fluctuates with the people and has livable and affordable rental units.

Lyann Shehan, Bicycle Coalition

- We need to keep safe and sustainable transportation options throughout this area.

Sharon Brinkley, Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee

  1. Keep in mind the fact that this is a very busy transit area and we do not need more cars there.

Jason Henderson

  1. Does not support the plan

Sue Vaughn

  1. Concerned about parking.

Susan King

  1. Strongly requested that the Commission reject this plan.
  2. We do not need another redevelopment area.

Howard Strauss, Sierra Club

  1. Supports the plan.

George Jones

  1. Does not support the plan.

Ken Warner

  1. The goal of this plan is the gentrification of Mid-Market and to build million dollar condos and multi-million dollar condos.
  2. We have struggled to maintain affordable housing in the heart of the City. We claimed that victory.

Unclear name

  1. Tenants already have enough trouble keeping affordable housing without this plan.

Leonard Brown

  1. The life support system for the main core of people that live in the Tenderloin is much needed. Doing this redevelopment, people will be displaced who need the services that are located in the Tenderloin.

Norma Smith-Willson

  1. We need more affordable housing, SROs and senior housing.
  2. We do not need more cars in the area.

Brian Eck

  1. We have been fighting for years to get our voices heard. Essentially, we are against redevelopment in the Mid-Market.

Robert Gray

  1. Asked the Commission not to pass this plan.

Charlene Gutter

  1. What is been proposed for the Mid-Market area is high priced housing for computer and other professionals.
  2. What is being left out of the equation are the poor and other creative people who are having difficulty affording this.
  3. Most people who live in this area are here because of rent control and accessible public transportation.

Eva Johnson

  1. To redevelop any part of San Francisco, or any part in the United States, you need to look at the other people--not just the seniors or the rich people--but the people that are in transition.

Terry Fries

  1. Spoke against the redevelopment plan.

Eduardo Gonzalez

  1. We do not need redevelopment that displaces poor people.

Effrain Rodriguez

- Is against the redevelopment plan

Bill Murphy

  1. I am too poor to be able to afford another place to live.
  2. Does redevelopment include poor people?

Stafford Parker

  1. We cannot afford the proposed expensive condos. We need affordable housing.

John Elberling

  1. This project is going to drive a lot people out of their home.

Philip Milton

  1. We need more affordable housing. We need to build a better neighborhood that would include us, the poor people.

Randi Wrytt

  1. Our Mid-Market redevelopment needs to be something more than buildings. It needs to be a place that refreshes itself. One that can fluctuate within the years and be part of the people of San Francisco.

Louis Ligouri

  1. Is in favor of the Mid-Market project.
  2. The area is in need of renovation. It is an infected area.

Brett Gladstone

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the plan.

Samuel Noily

  1. Spoke against the redevelopment plan.

Calvin Welch

  1. Spoke in support of the redevelopment plan.

Larry Petit

  1. Opposes the redevelopment plan.

Lisa Garcia-Gray

  1. This plan is not speaking to the real residents of Mid-Market.
  2. The poor residents of Mid-Market do not have power and million dollar contract behind them.

Booh Eduardo

  1. Respectfully requested that the Commission hold the Redevelopment Agency accountable for their actions.

Elizabeth Alexander

  1. Spoke against the redevelopment plan.

Gen Fujioka

  1. Urged the Commission to reject the proposed plan.
  2. The proposed plan failed to address the potential or likely discriminatory impact on the poor people of this neighborhood

Robert Lazzara

  1. Urged the Commission to consider parking in order to keep the miracle of the theaters in the area alive.

Keith Savage

  1. Urged the Commission to consider that all the people who will be displaced will be out on the street without training. Provide or create training for them.

Greg Holland

  1. Supports the plan.

Tom Hart

  1. The Mid-Market plan will give the area the ability to try to make some changes that bring about good in the area.

Scott Houghton

  1. Concerned about the short-term parking.
  2. Parking is adequate right now but can be inadequate on the nights when all theaters are open.

C. J. Higley

  1. There has been a lot of misinformation about this project.
  2. In addition to the affordable housing dollars that the plan would generate, the tax increment financing will also create placement improvements that will make Mid-Market an honest to goodness residential mix-use neighborhood. Improvements like trees, street furniture, pedestrian improvements and transportation options.

Sharon Slater

  1. Supports the plan.

Chris Peterson

  1. Supports the concept that this plan is encouraging--high density development in the Mid-Market as long as there is adequate protection provided for those who already live there.

Pam Hagen

  1. Is in support of the plan.

Linda Coeso

  1. Urged the Commission to pass the plan so we can start seeing the positive impacts of it soon.

Elizabeth Vanclute

  1. Spoke in support of the plan.

David Yee

  1. Parking availability is necessary for those who live and work in the Mid-Market area. Especially for the theater patrons.

David Hart

  1. Support the plan.

Karl Olson, Attorney for the Hearst Corporation

  1. The Hearst Corporation objects on behalf of its property at 901 Mission Street within the District.
  2. We are concerned about the SUD as currently configured because it could interfere with the development and renovation rights of property owners.
  3. The Hearst Corporation also believes that its property at 901 Mission St. has little in common with the rest of the proposed SUD, specifically some of the blocks of Market Street between 6th and 9th, and the Tenderloin blocks north of Market St. in the SUD.
  4. The apparent emphasis on housing in the area also may conflict with the development and use of the Chronicle commercial property in the area.
  5. The Hearst Corporation does not want to be forced to develop its property for housing or for any particular use.

Kate White, Housing Action Coalition

  1. One of the only ways to secure permanently affordable low income housing is to create a redevelopment area.
  2. The history of redevelopment is tragic and abominable.
  3. To those who oppose this plan, I would like to know what is their solution for creating affordable housing, for allowing poor people to stay in Mid-Market, what is their solution?

Jeffrey E. Auman

  1. Spoke against the redevelopment plan.

Gary Huck

  1. The Redevelopment Agency is a shame and a cancer on the City of San Francisco and should be abolished.

George Williams, SPUR

  1. SPUR wholeheartedly supports the plan and SUD.

Alma Robinson, California Lawyers for the Arts

  1. Spoke in support of the plan.

Starr Davis

  1. Support the plan.

Carolyn Diamond, Market Street Association

  1. Spoke in support of the plan.

Susan Bryan

  1. Opposes the proposal as is.

Rick Galbreath, San Francisco Arts Task Force

  1. Opposes the proposed amendments.

Steven Viscio

  1. Is in support of the plan.

Byron Yee

  1. Supports the plan.

Michael Nulty

  1. Is opposed to the project.

Laurie Hampton

  1. Opposes the proposed plan and amendments.

Dan Waldman

  1. Is in support of the plan.

Randy Shaw

  1. Urged the Commission to pass the SUD.

Jim Haas

  1. Asked the Commission to endorse the plan.

Craig Adelman

- Spoke in support of the plan.

Sarah Menefee

  1. Opposes the project.
  2. People's lives should be improved. But this is not the way to do it.

Kathleen Diohep

  1. In support of the plan.

Raquel Fox

  1. Spoke in opposition to the plan.

Paul Hogart

  1. This is a very beautiful City but it is hard to move here and harder to stay here. There is not a lot of affordable housing in the City.

April Veneracion

  1. Opposes the plan.

Steve Vettel

  1. This plan is very well balanced and the combination of the redevelopment plan and the SUD rezoning will do what it is intended to do.

Alice Barkley

  1. Against the Redevelopment Agency managing the project.

Jim Salinas

- In support of plan.

Casey Mills

  1. Do not pass this redevelopment plan.

Jeremy Olson

  1. Opposed to this plan.

Andrew Wood

- Opposes the plan.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

In order for the Redevelopment Plan to be in conformity with the San Francisco General Plan, the delegation agreement between the San Francisco Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency for this Redevelopment Plan shall include specific language that the Planning Department shall carry out all planning work identified in the Redevelopment Plan, and shall provide specific funding for the Planning Department to carry out such work, including but not limited to transportation and parking management plans; transit, open space and street improvements; the establishment of urban design guidelines, and other specific implementation plans and programs. The Commission also acknowledges that said delegation agreement shall be presented to the Commission for its approval at a future date.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17050

21b. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider a resolution to Approve Proposed Amendments to the Planning Code (Adding Section 249.27 and 263.18, and amending Sections 102.9, 123, 145.4, 153, 155.5, 166, 167, 204.3, and 309). Proposed amendments will establish the Mid-Market Special Use District and make related text and changes to the Planning Code pursuant to the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 21a.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

As part of the approval of the Special Use District, the Board of Supervisors requires that a study be undertaken to consider a) the imposition of a mitigation fee to address the impacts of providing additional parking which would require a Conditional Use review, and b) the creation of a system to provide for the transferability of parking rights from one site to another site within the Special Use District. The Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors encourage the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to jointly fund this study.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

RESOLUTION: 17051

21c. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider a resolution to Approve Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Map (Amending Maps 1SU, 2SU, 7, and 7SU). Proposed amendments will establish the Mid-Market Special Use District, and reclassify several parcels from C-M, C-3-S and SLR to C-3-G pursuant to the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 21a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17052

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

None

Adjournment: 11:41 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIGN COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 2, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:19 PM